In 1822, the British parliament adopted one act that will lead to the
situation we face today. The act was called The Cruel Treatment of
Cattle Act 1822 with the full name “An Act to prevent the cruel and
improper Treatment of Cattle” but it is more commonly known as the
Martin's Act. Two years after the act was adopted, on June 16th
1824 a new organisation was formed the Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals which will later be known as-Royal Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The RSPCA.The man behind this act
was called Richard Martin, also know as the “Humanity Dick”
nicknamed by the King George IV himself.

So who was Richard Martin?

Well,
he was the only son of Robert Martin Fitz Anthony and Hon. Bridget
Barnwall, born on January 15th
1754 in the Ballynahinch Castle,County Galway, on the coasts of
western Ireland. His family was Catholic, Jacobite, and also one of
fourteen old families that ruled the Galway from 14th
to 17th
century, collectively known as the “Tribes of Galway”.

Richard
Martin , however, was raised protestant.

He
entered the Irish House of Commons in 1776, sitting for the Jamestown
until 1783. Also he was appointed High Sheriff of County Galway in
1782. In 1798 her was returned to Parliament for Landsborough,
advocating the Catholic emancipation. When the act of union, in 1800
was adopted, unifying the Kingdom of Great Brittan and the kingdom of
Ireland thus creating the United Kingdom of Great Brittan,the Martin
was already the MP for the Galway county and as such he entered the
British parliament. There he continued to push for the Catholic
emancipation with little success. Aside for pushing for Catholic
emancipation, Richard Martin also pushed for the animal rights, and
so, in 1822 the Martin's act was adopted.

What
this act did, among other things was to ban blood sports, such as
dogfighting, bull bating and bear bating. All these “sports”
share one common thing, they are all linked by one participant and
that participant is the dog-the BULL DOG.

The
bulldog was the gladiator that was used to amuse the crowd and the
brutality of those fights, equally amused the rich and the poor so
the event itself was serving as vent for channelling the aggression
and discontent among population. In a way it had the same,
“adrenaline rush” feeling as the professional wrestling or NASCAR
has today. It creates an overdose of excitement after which you feel,
lets say, “more content” with your life. Or to put it in short,
it is a tranquiliser drug. But with this ban, bulldogs lost their
purpose and instead of being terminated as a breed,Oh by the glorious
consensus rules!, they were kept alive. They went underground and
continued to be used in illegal dog fighting.

Bulldogs
were also transported to the New World, where they were used for the
same purpose. However, the New World was in its infancy and was
pretty much a wild and disorganised place to live in and so,
eventually, those bulldogs became strays. The damage that they were
doing was so vast, that no weapon was good enough to stop them. They
soon became dreaded creatures, that were mauling humans left and
right. So something new was needed that will contain the threat of
roaming bulldogs. The “solution” was found in the creation of
specific breed of dog that is designed with
one thing in mind-to fight bulldogs. Enter the pit bull. Yes, that is
right, the pit bull is the biological weapon designed to contain and
exterminate bulldogs that were roaming free and unemployed across
England and United States at the end of 19th
century. This is, again, dismissed by the consensus as the notorious
nonsense, cause it is true. Why would you have a dog that is
specifically designed to attack other dogs and not only to attack
them but to kill them, if you don't feel threaten by those “other”
dogs?

So
there you have it, that is the true nature and the agenda behind the
creation of pit bulls.

But
back to the “humanity” Dick. Humanity Dick was so humane that he
was involved in more than 100 duels fought with sabres and guns. He
held a military rank, he was a Colonel. Also somehow he appears in
the American and French revolutions. He ended his life in France,
where he fled after being accused for intimidation charges. To make
things more bizarre, the formation of RSPCA was held in a coffee shop
called "Old Slaughter's" and during his lifetime, the
Martin was passionate fox hunter.

One
event from his life, actually describes the true nature of the
dogcraver better than I would ever be able to do.

“Hair-Trigger
Martin”

Reported
to be of rather average height, with a brawny, stocky build, the
ginger-haired Martin was also considered the most formidable and
well-known fire-eater, or duelist, of the 18th century, having fought
on over 100 occasions. An illustrious example of his skill and
compassion relates to one incident involving a beloved canine by the
name of Prime Serjeant.

Claiming
the wolfhound was consuming meat scraps that should have been
destined for the poor, George Robert “Fighting Fitzgerald” shot
the dog with a pistol, but allowed the women in the Browne domain to
keep their lapdogs. As a dear friend to the Browne Family and Prime
Serjeant, Martin personally vowed to avenge the dog’s untimely end
which he did some years later in a heated clash with Fitzgerald. (As
he wasn’t the guardian of Prime Serjeant, Martin had no legal
grounds to pursue justice at the time of the shooting.) Martin was
maimed in the chest and proudly sported his battle scars in the years
to follow, while the twice-hit Fitzgerald went unscathed as he had
sneakily donned protective undergarments during the scuffle.

There
are quite a few sympathetic animal tales like the above, some of
which even Martin himself would recount in Parliament. At the ripe
old age of 67, MP Martin stood on a street on London’s Ludgate
Hill, watching a man mercilessly beat his equine. Out of nowhere, two
men emerged, yanking the man away from the horse and dolling out
punches on the animal abuser. The two avengers had been paid five
shillings a piece for their act. Their financier? Richard Martin.
Martin’s physical and legislative fight for four-legged creatures
would continue in the decades leading up to this point and following
it as well.”

Like I said before, this blog is a sort of a book. All essays are actually chapters or parts of the chapters that are connected and on their own, sometimes they don't make sense. What I am trying to do here, in essence is to identify the context of the dog ownership. The story about Martin's act is a historical note, simply because human civilisation has history, it has records that can be used to track something trough space and time. So, since the dogs and humans have a long historical bond, history comes into the play. The article about Martin's law is connected to the story about threat perception, but in Martin's act it deals more with the perception, perception of a man that was able to bring his idea to the reality and what were the consequences of the development that idea. Since the Richard Martin was clearly an violent man the paradox comes when he is portrayed as “humanity Dick” . How can you call someone humane when that someone, I don't know how to put it, lives the violent lifestyle?

The link between dog ownership and violent personality is well documented and known and Richard Martin's case is no exception to that. The man whom played a crucial role in the creation of animal protection laws, loved dogs more than anything, back in 19th century and now we have reckless dog ownership and problems with dogs in 21st century. The dogs are legally protected but somehow humans didn't.

Total Pageviews

About Me

“One of the greatest mistakes, in my opinion, is to identify the pet movement with the ecological movement. The pet movement is an industry based commercial trend while the ecological movement is driven by the noble idea that goes beyond ourselves. The pet movement is equally destructive towards nature as the oil industry is yet it was able to hide its true nature behind pet animal. The pet animal is just another industrial product and has the connection with the nature as much as the oil tanker. It is my firm belief that the greatest danger for the ecological movement and nature itself, comes not from the heavy industries yet from the pet movement itself”.
Professor Hilder